Dokploy MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations indicate this is a mutable (readOnlyHint=false), non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context by specifying it's a POST request, which aligns with the mutable nature. However, it doesn't disclose critical details like what 'markRunning' entails (e.g., side effects, permissions needed, or response format), leaving gaps despite annotations covering basic safety.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is brief and front-loaded with the tool signature, but includes redundant formatting (brackets, parentheses) and a parameter list that adds little value. While efficient, it could be more polished by integrating the parameter info into a cohesive sentence, though it avoids unnecessary verbosity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (a mutable operation with no output schema and 0% parameter coverage), the description is inadequate. It lacks details on what 'markRunning' does, expected outcomes, error conditions, or how it interacts with other application states. Annotations provide some safety context, but the description doesn't fill the gaps for effective agent use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, with one required parameter (applicationId). The description only lists 'applicationId (string, required)' without explaining what this ID represents (e.g., format, source, or constraints). It fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, providing no meaningful semantics beyond what the bare schema already indicates.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the tool is 'application.markRunning (POST)' which implies it marks an application as running via a POST request. However, it doesn't specify what 'markRunning' means operationally (e.g., sets status, triggers process) or how it differs from sibling tools like 'dokploy_application_start' or 'dokploy_application_deploy'. The purpose is vague beyond the basic verb+resource.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for application management (start, stop, deploy, redeploy), the description offers no context about prerequisites, appropriate scenarios, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.